Allen West: “Now is not the time to play a social experiment with our ground combat forces”

posted at 1:51 pm on January 24, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

I don’t know if part of the rationale for yesterday’s kinda’-sorta’ out-of-left-field announcement that the Pentagon is lifting the ban on women serving in direct combat is supposed to be some kind of barrier-breaking, legacy-building last hurrah for Leon Panetta, but if that’s the case, I’m not sure that that legacy will be a very positive one. There’s been no dearth of criticism for the idea from veterans, including from one former Republican Congressman Allen West:

However, to make the insidious policy decision that we shall now open up combat billets to women is something completely different. GI Jane was a movie and should not be the basis for a policy shift. I know Martha McSally, have known women who are Apache and Cobra helicopter pilots, and served with women who were MPs, but being on the ground and having to go mano y mano in close combat is a completely different environment.

I completely disagree with this decision and can just imagine all the third and fourth order effects and considerations for implementation, such as standards for training. Unless the Obama administration has not noticed we are fighting against a brutal enemy and now is not the time to play a social experiment with our ground combat forces. President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, should be focused on sequestration and the failure of his policies in the Middle East. This is the misconceived liberal progressive vision of fairness and equality which could potentially lead to the demise of our military.

The WSJ ran a pretty persuasive op-ed to a similar effect from former Marine Ryan Smith, who points out that social norms are not something you can just toss aside, especially in assessing a combat unit’s cohesion and efficiency:

We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation’s military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?

How exactly this is going to play out technically is still to be determined; lifting the ban on women in combat isn’t quite the same as instantly opening all combat roles to women. The services will have until January 2016 to defend cases in which they think women should be kept out of certain roles, but there will definitely be plenty of political fallout and intentional cultural boat-rocking in the meantime — because President Obama and the Democrats now have another specific item to tout whenever they want to revive their “war on women” meme, besides the Lily Ledbetter Act: Actual war on women.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Yes, Deanna, I am aware. I’m not new to the planet. I’m not saying it is a 50/50 prop. I served, and for you who talk about physical performance, if you served, you know damn well that your unit was anything but physically equal, even if all male.

Limerick on January 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM

With all due respect, (And I honestly mean that respectfully) the question here really is not, do women have the spirit, courage or physical strength to fight. They unquestionably do. What is at question is, do they have the physical stamina to sustain a long duration fighting required to be in a combat role. The answer to that question is undeniably no.

Many comments about women signing up for selective service (draft) and such. It is an all volunteer force, and will (IMO) remain such for quite a while.

The problem here isn’t if they can or cannot lift a 270lb man out of a burning tank, or shoot straight, or stand to pee. The question I have to ask is why, if a woman chooses to join the military, does she get to choose whether or not to serve in a “front-line”/combat unit, while a male counterpart goes to where he is ASSIGNED?

Can’t have it both ways. If you join this all volunteer force, you get orders to serve where your talents and abilities best fill the needs of the service. Been doing it for 20 years, and I never recieved a set of requests – always a set of orders.

Do you think that the physical standards for combat training and combat units should be lowered for women? Yes or No?

blink on January 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM

I think the standards for women should be appropriate for women. The idea that women have to perform to the exact physical requirements as men is a red herring. If the ability to ovulate was a requirement for being in the military, how many men would be wearing the uniform? That’s a tongue-in-cheek point, but it illustrates the fallacy that because women have different physical abilities from men they cannot be effective in combat.

But if women were drafted it should not be for front line combat. They shouldn’t be drafted at all. But that’s what happens when men become liberals, they lose their manliness.
Rose on January 24, 2013 at 3:12 PM

People who applaud this decision don’t care about equality or the military men and women. If they did they would be demanding that equal physical standards be put in place before making a unilateral decision like this was made.

People who applaud this only care about how they can drink their koolaid and think they are “supporting” equality.

I hope it gives them all the warm fuzzies while people like me have to live with more coffins coming home because some chick could carry her own weight..

Orwell was right when he said some animals are more equal than others.

I think the standards for women should be appropriate for women. The idea that women have to perform to the exact physical requirements as men is a red herring. If the ability to ovulate was a requirement for being in the military, how many men would be wearing the uniform? That’s a tongue-in-cheek point, but it illustrates the fallacy that because women have different physical abilities from men they cannot be effective in combat.

chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:34 PM

So you aren’t for equality at all. You acknowledge that women can not live up to in physical standards.

So when it is required that 125 lbs is to be carried by an MOS- let me guess you expect the men to carry the extra weight that the little woman can’t.

I really hate people like you.. And yes I said hate, because it is idiots like you who get people in the military community killed.

And my point was to question your original comparison. There is, as you know, a lot of difference between spending days in the field in a foreign country than to serving in your hometown and being able to go home every night for starters.
I think we need to seriously consider the physical capablities much more than is being done. I do know that women in the service were not always expected to perform the same duties or as well as men. Let’s see if that changes and if they are truly up to it.

And with all do respect back I take your points humbly and with a promise to reflect on them. That is what discussion is about, I believe.

Limerick on January 24, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Indeed it is. Our society is unfortunately suffering a curious and deadly malady. Our technology has sanitized the concept of war and our politicians have made it a political opportunity for self advancement and profit to the point that the majority of our citizens no longer understand what war or combat really are. To most, they amount to little more than a police operation, clean and sterile easily cleaned up afterwards.

Reality however is something entirely different. No matter what you do, no matter how much your technology advances, there is no kind or gentle way to kill a human being. War and it’s eldest child combat are nothing less than the act of killing those who oppose you and breaking their stuff until they cease all resistance. It is not police work, it is the business of killing those who are actively aggressively resisting being killed. The more those resisting resist, the uglier the killing gets. That is reality.

It is seldom a quick clean easy task to accomplish, it drags on and on and on getting more and more difficult as each day passes. It is something that should never be entered into quickly if it can be avoided and should always be a last resort. But television coverage of the highlights and movie and video games have clouded peoples perceptions of what war and combat really are. It is the ugliest most violent business mankind has ever created and that is not going to change any time soon.

With all due respect, (And I honestly mean that respectfully) the question here really is not, do women have the spirit, courage or physical strength to fight. They unquestionably do. What is at question is, do they have the physical stamina to sustain a long duration fighting required to be in a combat role. The answer to that question is undeniably no.

SWalker on January 24, 2013 at 3:21 PM

No. The question is “what will best allow our military to complete their mission?” If the military was clamoring for more women in its ranks because “they can do _____ better, and we need them” then this discussion would be warranted. They are not.

I think the standards for women should be appropriate for women. The idea that women have to perform to the exact physical requirements as men is a red herring. If the ability to ovulate was a requirement for being in the military, how many men would be wearing the uniform? That’s a tongue-in-cheek point, but it illustrates the fallacy that because women have different physical abilities from men they cannot be effective in combat.

chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:34 PM

I would say that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard – but dante has been posting a lot lately.
The physical requirements of military combat positions are funtional requirements – the physical abilities necessary to do that specific job no matter who you are. Those requirements should not be changed just because you want certain people to be in the job – or you decrease the effectiveness of those units – and that results in people getting killed.
If a combat position requires that you be able to carry a 110 pound equipment pack, and any particular female wanting that job can do so, then I say give her a shot at it. But there should be no dumbing down of requirements and no excuses if the person can’t hack it.

If a combat position requires that you be able to carry a 110 pound equipment pack, and any particular female wanting that job can do so, then I say give her a shot at it. But there should be no dumbing down of requirements and no excuses if the person can’t hack it.

German soldiers at Stalingrad would undeniably disagree with you. The Russian women fighters were ferocious and killed plenty of Germans.

chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Your grasp of history is pathetic. Women did not serve in infantry roles in the Russian Army, they served as snipers and they suffered 10 times the corresponding fatalities as the Russian men. Did they make effective snipers? Yes. Were they under the same physical duress as the Russian men, unequivocally no.

I’d imagine an intramural tackle series at almost any university would work just as well. Those guys would be at similar levels of youth and athletic ability as the women. Nothing special, just average Joes and Josephines.

Assuming any guys would tackle the women (which I doubt, and which handily demonstrates another point about this argument).

rogerb on January 24, 2013 at 2:39 PM

From the headlines thread:

Next time you are in a high school gym, take a look at the track records board. The girls and boys records are usually side by side. Now, have you ever seen any record that is better on the girls side than on the boys side? I have not, and I have been to a lot of gyms in my day, and my dad likes to look at every record board we come across.

High school seniors during track season are 1-3 months away from military service, if they choose it.

Yeah, there was a lot of that kind of talk when Truman integrated the armed forces too. How did that “social experiment” turn out, Allen?

Conservatives: Wrong on racial integration, wrong on same sex marriage, wrong on women in the military.

Wrong on just about everything.

chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I’ve got news for you, chump. The military STILL segregates people. In the Marines, female recruits can only go to boot camp at Parris Island. Males go to either MCRD or Parris depending upon which side of the Mississippi River they live.

As for Progressives and segregation, who the hell do you think segregated the Federal government and the military (after the Civil War and until Proggie, Wilson, became POTUS the races served together)…

Mr. Monroe Trotter: Mr. President, we are here to renew our protest against the segregation of colored employees in the departments of our National Government. We [had] appealed to you to undo this race segregation in accord with your duty as President and with your pre-election pledges to colored American voters. We stated that such segregation was a public humiliation and degradation, and entirely unmerited and far-reaching in its injurious effects. . . .

President Woodrow Wilson: The white people of the country, as well as I, wish to see the colored people progress, and admire the progress they have already made, and want to see them continue along independent lines. There is, however, a great prejudice against colored people. . . . It will take one hundred years to eradicate this prejudice, and we must deal with it as practical men. Segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen. If your organization goes out and tells the colored people of the country that it is a humiliation, they will so regard it, but if you do not tell them so, and regard it rather as a benefit, they will regard it the same. The only harm that will come will be if you cause them to think it is a humiliation.

Mr. Monroe Trotter: It is not in accord with the known facts to claim that the segregation was started because of race friction of white and colored [federal] clerks. The indisputable facts of the situation will not permit of the claim that the segregation is due to the friction. It is untenable, in view of the established facts, to maintain that the segregation is simply to avoid race friction, for the simple reason that for fifty years white and colored clerks have been working together in peace and harmony and friendliness, doing so even through two [President Grover Cleveland] Democratic administrations. Soon after your inauguration began, segregation was drastically introduced in the Treasury and Postal departments by your appointees.

President Woodrow Wilson: If this organization is ever to have another hearing before me it must have another spokesman. Your manner offends me. . . . Your tone, with its background of passion.

Mr. Monroe Trotter: But I have no passion in me, Mr. President, you are entirely mistaken; you misinterpret my earnestness for passion.

“We want one class of persons to have a liberal education and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks”?

If a combat position requires that you be able to carry a 110 pound equipment pack, and any particular female wanting that job can do so, then I say give her a shot at it. But there should be no dumbing down of requirements and no excuses if the person can’t hack it.

dentarthurdent on January 24, 2013 at 3:47 PM

This ^^

melle1228 on January 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM

And BTW – when I say “give her a shot at it” – I really mean a shot at going through the training program. Then let’s see how she stands up to the men in pugil stick and hand-to-hand combat – cuz the enemy sure as he!! aint going to make sure she only fights other women on the battlefield.

Do you think that the physical standards for combat training and combat units should be lowered for women? Yes or No?

blink on January 24, 2013 at 3:17 PM

I think the standards for women should be appropriate for women.

chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:34 PM

So, you want TWO sets of physical requirements for women as me. You want women to be able to graduate from combat training programs without having to meet the same physical standards as all the students are currently required to meet.

The idea that women have to perform to the exact physical requirements as men is a red herring.

If it’s ok for some students to fail to meet the training programs physical requirements, then why do those programs currently have such requirements?

Are you telling me that we can be saving money, but allowing some of the students to have lower physical requirements than others????

Why should women be the only ones allowed to fail to “perform to the exact physical requirements” that the program requires?

If the ability to ovulate was a requirement for being in the military, how many men would be wearing the uniform?

None. Let me know if there are any programs in the military in which this requirement makes sense.

THANKS FOR MAKING MY POINT!

I think I see what’s going on here. You think that physical requirements that the military has are arbitrary or something.

You know nothing about the military so you don’t know that physical requirements have been developed via years and years of experience. High physical requirements are expense. Low physical requirements are cheaper, but produce less capable graduates. Training program requirements are specifically chosen for the type of training and type of mission that the graduates receive.

it illustrates the fallacy that because women have different physical abilities from men they cannot be effective in combat.

So, you’re definitely claiming that the currently physical standards that are required shouldn’t be required? How do you know this? Are you an expert in this field?

Do you think it should be required for a Navy or Coast Guard rescue swimmer to be able to do 9 pull-ups? Do YOU want to risk the life of the swimmer and potential rescuee by being the person that orders the military to waive this requirement for women?

Or, do you think that all rescue swimmers should be required to meet the same physical standards? If you ever needed a rescue swimmer, would YOU want one that didn’t meet the same physical standards? Yes or No?

I bet he says that about all unanimous decisions by the the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

verbaluce on January 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Shouldn’t women, who are going to serve in ground combat roles, meet the same physical requirements as men?

Even now, the military admits that women are not as strong, as a whole, as men. The Army PFT requires recruits to complete a 15:12 2-mile run or better. The Rangers prefers a 2 miler in under 13 minutes. For women in the Marine Corps, the PFT spots them 3:22 minutes off the top for the 17-26 age group, 2:30 minutes in the 27-31 group, 2:36 in the 32-36 group, etc., for the 3-mile run. The Navy requires a time under 12:51 for males under age 30 and under 15:26 for women under 30.

Engaging in ground combat is not like playing golf. You’re not handicapped. The enemy isn’t going to give women a 20-point handicap.

I think the standards for women should be appropriate for women. The idea that women have to perform to the exact physical requirements as men is a red herring. If the ability to ovulate was a requirement for being in the military, how many men would be wearing the uniform? That’s a tongue-in-cheek point, but it illustrates the fallacy that because women have different physical abilities from men they cannot be effective in combat.
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Speaking of Red Herrings. Who is suggesting that women cannot be in any way effective in combat?

The point is, women who meet a lower standard for physical capabilities will not be AS EFFECTIVE in infantry roles as those who would otherwise meet the same physical requirements as their male counterparts.

f a combat position requires that you be able to carry a 110 pound equipment pack, and any particular female wanting that job can do so, then I say give her a shot at it. But there should be no dumbing down of requirements and no excuses if the person can’t hack it.

dentarthurdent on January 24, 2013 at 3:47 PM

This ^^

melle1228 on January 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM

What if it cost 3x the amount to train a women for the same job? Should we pay extra for that, or are you ok with filtering our training programs based on certain physical attributes in order to make the training programs more efficient and cost effective.

Should we stop having a fat measurement requirement to get into these programs? After all, some fat people can meet the standards so why not let them try? Maybe because statistically it’s a waste of money to give them a slot in the training program?

Rose my apologies for anything I have said that may on the face of it seem confusing. chump and I have quite a history. He doesn’t do well when folks counter him with too good an argument. So pardon me for the interruptions. Very nicely made points on your part by the way. ; )

I bet he says that about all unanimous decisions by the the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

verbaluce on January 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM

The Joint Chiefs are mostly politicians who just happen to be in uniform by the time they get to that level. If the SECDEF or President tells them “this is what I want”, they will all agree to it. We might possibly hear some truth from one of them about this decision after he retires – unless he plans on going fully into politics.

Sure – give fat people a shot at the training program (initially) – if they can meet the physical standards for entry. But when they flunk out cuz they can’t hack it – too bad, no excuses, no changing the requirements to allow for their lack of ability.

Perhaps you have made similar arguments against past elevations of women’s roles in the armed services. And perhaps you later discovered your concerns were unfounded. Fighter pilots maybe?
I trust the military here…especially the infantry leaders who make decisions based on all sorts of factors.

Not to mention that their losses were equal to everyone else losses combined.

SWalker on January 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Yet the women were there and they fought under the same physical conditions as the men did. The Germans showed them no mercy if they were captured and they showed none to the Germans.

I don’t think Russian women are any better than American women. I give them more credit as warrriors than apparently anyone else on this board does.

chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM

This is where your profound ignorance of history rears it’s ugly head. The Russian women serving as snipers did not fight under the same physical condition as the Russian infantry men did. They carried only their rifles and 50 or so rounds of ammunition for it. They fired on the Germans from concealed positions in urban settings. What they were not, was infantry combat troops and they did not serve under identical physical conditions.

Furthermore you are far from having any respect for those women, you are using them in a false narrative to “win” your argument. that is nothing even remotely close to respect.

I on the other hand actually respect them for what they did do. they were courageous and fierce and inflicted a great deal of damage on the Germans, but I will not disgrace their accomplishments by attributing to them things that they did not do or were not. And what they most assuredly were not, was combat infantry troops.

Although I am not for women in direct combat roles, I’m wondering why so many folks seem worried that ALL female soldiers want to fill combat roles. In fact, I doubt very many females even covet those jobs. Most female soldiers are content to fill support roles that are every bit as important to the lives and safety of our ground troops.

Although I am not for women in direct combat roles, I’m wondering why so many folks seem worried that ALL female soldiers want to fill combat roles. In fact, I doubt very many females even covet those jobs. Most female soldiers are content to fill support roles that are every bit as important to the lives and safety of our ground troops.

TXJenny on January 24, 2013 at 4:32 PM

We are not worried that they might want to, we are worried that they might be required to. Women are not bared from playing in the NFL or the NBA, but they do not do so for a very good reason.

Perhaps you have made similar arguments against past elevations of women’s roles in the armed services. And perhaps you later discovered your concerns were unfounded. Fighter pilots maybe?
I trust the military here…especially the infantry leaders who make decisions based on all sorts of factors.

verbaluce on January 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

“Perhaps” I haven’t. I don’t have a problem with women serving in ground combat roles PROVIDED THEY ARE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS AND DO NOT UNNECESSARILY ENDANGER THEMSELVES OR OTHERS.

Can the blind be fighter pilots? Can those, who only speak one language, serve as interpreters/translators?

The answers to both are NO…and I didn’t make those rules. They ARE the rules.

Yet the women were there and they fought under the same physical conditions as the men did. The Germans showed them no mercy if they were captured and they showed none to the Germans.
chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 4:14 PM

If this is true, then why can’t the physical standards for combat be the same?
blink on January 24, 2013 at 4:18 PM

That’s because Stalin was in complete control of the psychological warfare program against the population of his country.

Although I am not for women in direct combat roles, I’m wondering why so many folks seem worried that ALL female soldiers want to fill combat roles. In fact, I doubt very many females even covet those jobs. Most female soldiers are content to fill support roles that are every bit as important to the lives and safety of our ground troops.

TXJenny on January 24, 2013 at 4:32 PM

We are not worried that they might want to, we are worried that they might be required to. Women are not bared from playing in the NFL or the NBA, but they do not do so for a very good reason.

SWalker on January 24, 2013 at 4:37 PM

My biggest concern is that they will likely weaken the physical requirements for combat positions just so that women can pass, and that will get people killed.
Women have proven capable in many positions in the military where the ability to carry a 120 pound pack and do hand-to-hand combat with the enemy are not required – flying planes, operating computer systems of various kinds, controlling satellites, etc.
But to reduce the effectiveness of ground combat units by reducing the physical standards to let women in is sheer lunacy.

Can the blind be fighter pilots? Can those, who only speak one language, serve as interpreters/translators?
The answers to both are NO…and I didn’t make those rules. They ARE the rules.

Resist We Much on January 24, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Even though I really wanted to be a fighter pilot, I was not allowed to because my eyes weren’t good enough, in fact they wouldn’t even let me be a navigator. I also was not in good enough physical condition to be able to get through something like Ranger training (Dirty Harry – “A man’s got to know his limitations”). So I went into space operations (tracking satellites – computer work). Life’s tough – you can’t always do what you might want.
Every military specialty code has spcific requirements to be able to successfully fulfill the mission. If you can meet the existing requirements – go for it. If not, find something else.

Perhaps it would be more prudent to see women’s sports phased out and women forced to play in the men’s leagues before we do the same in combat forces? Let’s see if women tennis players can do anything against the men … or women basketball players can make it in the NBA … or women golfers can qualify for any PGA events before we declare that women on the front lines can play in the men’s league for life-threatening and important situations for our national security. That would be prudent. After all, if it’s equality that women want then there shouldn’t be any women’s leagues for anything. If they can’t compete with the men – if women sprinters can’t crack the top 500 sprinters int he world or women high jumpers can’t qualify for any team – then let that be known to all and put to rest this idiotic idea that women can perform these sorts of activities at the same level of men.

The idiocy level that this nation – the American Socialist Superstate – has reached is truly mind-blowing. Of course, when you have an ineligible, 84 IQ, affirmative action, America-hating imbecile running the Executive branch as if he were the reincarnation of Sukarno I guess it all fits.

You are drawing a distinction without a difference. Women are fully capable of fighting under combat conditions. The American military knows it and has now formalized the practice.

chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Another Red Herring. No one is saying women can’t handle the environment, or can’t perform at all.

Put Tina Charles in an NBA game and she could probably scrap out a few rebounds and a few points. No question she could perform, but we wouldn’t expect her to perform at the same level as any other starting center in the NBA.

Explain to me how a woman who does not meet the same physical requirements as men would perform just as well in an infantry roll as a woman who does meet the same physical requirements.

Haven’t Progs ever heard of the 4-F classification? Men, who could not meet basic physical qualifications, were barred from military service. If one is incapable of performing the task, then s/he shouldn’t be permitted to have the job. Progs talk a big talk about the “collective,” but one weak link can kill the collective. If a woman can perform to the same standards for ground combat that men are held to, then they have every right to serve in that role.

All women aren’t weaker than men (I have no doubt that Lynndie England could beat Bradley Manning’s ass to a pulp), but most are. “Weakening-down” the military to appease a few FemiNazis harms all of us in “the collective” – and it IS a few. There is no great demand within the military for women to serve in ground combat roles. In fact, according to a poll last year, only 1% of women currently in the armed forces even want to serve in combat.

If the women of the 1% can meet the requirements that 100% of men in the military must, then more power to them relative to combat service. If not, then they should perform other tasks that are equally important like intelligence or operating weapons systems that do not require physical strength. It is NOT discriminatory to demand ALL combat troops meet certain physical requirements. What’s discriminatory is the current “affirmative action” in the military where 80% becomes 100% for women. As a woman, THAT offends me deeply.

i would add that for women in combat units it’s far more than just being able to perform at an adequate level (which they can’t). It’s the idea of close quarters living, screwing around, lack of concentration and distraction, … and all the other things that we all know happen when men and women are forced to live closely together, especially under high-stress situations.

The performance question would bring up the idea of women-only combat units, perhaps, but co-ed units present such serious social problems that we shouldn’t even get to the performance issue (though the women fail miserably at that as we have all been pointing out with just about every sport on Earth).

We have yet to really feel the problems coming from openly gay soldiers mingling in combat units (with the idiots acting as if gays can control their sexual impulses more than heterosexuals can – which is beyond a joke for anyone who knows how incredibly wild gay sexual lifestyles are) and now they want to throw women in the mix so everyone can have sexual tensions all over the place …

It’s all quite incredible, though not surprising seeing the dolts, fools, retards and criminals that this nation has elected to office. This is one of the saddest, most pathetic points in recorded history. We shall all be laughing stocks and cautionary tales for thousands of years into the future – even those of us who oppose these worms and their idiocy.

You are drawing a distinction without a difference. Women are fully capable of fighting under combat conditions. The American military knows it and has now formalized the practice.

chumpThreads on January 24, 2013 at 4:58 PM

You are arguing based on a faulty analogy. Your example is about a situation where they HAD to fight – or die – and most died. There was no choice for any of them, male or female, and those with the lesser physical abilities died first. Just because people were forced into combat in the middle of that war just to have a chance to survive, does not justify putting unqualified people into modern combat now. That’s not how our military operates – well at least it WASN’T how we operated – until now.